Moscow calls on Damascus for chemical disarmament

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov (R) had warned that a military solution to the Syrian conflict would “result in anarchic terrorism” and a growing number of refugees.. Source: ITAR-TASS

Russia is looking for ways to prevent an attack on Syria.

Russia has called on Syria to transfer its chemical
weapons over to international control, in order to avoid an attack from the
United States. Washington has reacted cautiously to this Russian initiative.
Nevertheless, experts believe there is a chance that this could be
implemented — especially if the U.S. Congress votes against military action.

“If international control over chemical weapons in Syria
can help avoid attacks, we will immediately start working with Damascus,” said
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.

“We call on the Syrian government not
only to agree to the transfer of chemical weapons warehouses to international
supervision, but also to their subsequent destruction, as well as to having the
country join the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.”

According to the head of the Russian Ministry of Foreign
Affairs, Russia has already submitted its proposal to Syrian Foreign Minister Walid
Muallem.

Earlier, Lavrov had warned that a military solution to the
Syrian conflict would “result in anarchic terrorism” and a growing number of
refugees. In addition, he assured that Moscow would do everything possible to
prevent an attack on Syria.

According to him, possibilities for a political
settlement still exist. Moscow will also seek the return to Syria of U.N.
experts on chemical weapons as soon as possible to complete their mission,
because it has the facts that confirm that this was a provocation.

As RIA Novosti reports, Walid Muallem, in his turn,
confirmed at a press conference in Moscow that Damascus was willing to take
part in the “Geneva-2” conference and to seek a compromise with the opposition without
any preconditions.

The Russian foreign minister said that Syria was ready for a
dialogue with the United States. Muallem emphasized that, if the problem was
only concerning chemical weapons, then the issue could be resolved by political
means.

U.S. President Barack Obama praised the Russian proposal in
a series of television interviews on Monday night, Sept.
9. Answering a question on channel ABC about whether it would be possible to
postpone an attack on Syria if chemical weapons were transferred to
international control, the head of the White House replied: “Of course. If it
really happens.”

On the air with Fox News, Obama said that he welcomed the
proposal to remove chemical weapons from the Syrian authorities, but the U.S.
wanted a “very quick response” as to how serious the Russian proposal was. “We
will immediately begin to talk with the Russians and to look at what specific
things they have to offer,” said Obama.

Experts have different opinions on prospects for the
Russian initiative.

Yevgeny Satanovsky, president of the Middle East Institute,
believes that Obama’s statements are nothing more than a nice gesture. “We are
always looking for meaning in the words of American presidents and secretaries
of state, but they just decide tactical tasks — to say something bright enough to
be written about by journalists. They have no other objectives,” he said.

Satanovsky believes that an attack on Syria is inevitable:
“The opponents of Syria have sought to end this war for a long time, as the
task was to overthrow Assad’s regime as quickly as possible, as it happened in
other countries during the Arab Spring.”

“Everything possible has already been done for a planned
attack on Syria; huge money has been paid by Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey.
Under no circumstances is it acceptable for them that Assad survives this war — the
stakes are too high,” Satanovsky told the newspaper Vzglyad. He believes that
the American government is receiving money from the opponents of Assad.

“American and Arab observers have been writing for a long
time already about who and what amount was received for specific actions, and
the figures are quite concrete. The United States received about $17 billion
for the civil war and $2-3 million for the adoption of the appropriate decision
by the U.S. government and for passing it through Congress — but that's just the
start.”

The Gulf countries, according to Satanovsky, will pay the
U.S. as much as they are asked for, as they do not have the military power of
the United States, but wish to destroy their enemy.

He noted that such monetary
relations had already taken place between Qatar and the French Ministry of
Foreign Affairs, as well as with the presidents of the country — first with
Sarkozy on Libya, and now with Hollande on Syria.

Alexander Vavilov, Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary Envoy
of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and professor at the Diplomatic Academy of
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, holds the opposite opinion. He believes that
Obama decided to prepare an elegant and decent option with the cancellation of
the plans to attack, in case of a failure in Congress. In this case, Obama will
need to save face.

“The Americans understand that they have gotten themselves
into a deadlock, and now they are looking for a way out of it. If someone was
really getting ready to attack, then no one would know anything about it; and, if
it is trumpeted in advance, then it is just a PR campaign,” said Vavilov.

According to him, President Obama is now in no position to
wage a war. “Now Obama is in his second term; he will not be running for
re-election. So now his main task is to stay in the memory of Americans as a
man who strengthened stability in the world,” said the analyst. “Iraq and Libya
have already taught Obama a lot, and now the Americans will not step on the
same rake.”